Check your accumulated referral earnings — the passive income stream from every agent you've onboarded into Synmerco. Earnings keep accruing as your network transacts, with no further work required from you.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | Yes | Decentralized Identifier (e.g. did:key:z...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Check' strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. It also adds useful context about earnings accruing without further user action. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything' or mention permissions, but the read-only intent is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the direct purpose, and the second adds contextual value about the passive income stream. No redundant or extraneous wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one well-documented parameter, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what the tool does and the context of referral earnings. It does not explicitly describe the return format or units, which is a minor gap, but the overall purpose and usage are well covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the 'did' parameter with a regex pattern and example, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, which is sufficient given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('accumulated referral earnings'), including the scope ('from every agent you've onboarded'). This distinguishes it from siblings like register_referral and get_wallet_balance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates when to use this tool: to check accumulated referral earnings. It provides context that earnings accrue passively, implying it can be used anytime. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the use case is unambiguous for a simple getter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, especially in reputation (agent_rank_lookup, lookup_trust_score, federated_reputation, resolve_agent, get_identity) and discovery (marketplace_search, semantic_search, search_agents, browse_intents). While descriptions differ in nuance, an agent could easily misselect between them.
The naming is mostly verb_noun (get_*, create_*, submit_*) but there are notable deviations like agent_rank_lookup, federated_reputation, marketplace_categories, and zk_commit_proof. Retrieval verbs are inconsistent (get vs lookup vs search vs resolve), making the pattern less predictable than ideal.
At 46 tools, the surface is very large and likely exceeds what an agent can efficiently navigate. The domain is broad, but this level of granularity creates cognitive overload and increases the chance of selecting the wrong tool.
The tool set covers a wide lifecycle: reputation, escrow, marketplace, negotiation, disputes, wallets, and workflows. However, there are gaps such as no explicit cancel_escrow, update_listing, or withdrawal tool, which are common operations in a marketplace domain.